MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034665

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                       records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his records by paying him for accrued leave upon retirement.

APPLICANT STATES.  In effect, that he should have been allowed to use his accrued leave prior to his retirement.  He submits several service record documents to substantiate his case.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 26 August 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant submits the following:

a.  A copy of a 13 February 1996 memorandum from the medical department at Fort Stewart, Georgia to the effect that the applicant’s medical condition did not warrant referral for disability processing.  It notes that the applicant should be allowed appropriate permissive TDY and transitional leave.

b.  A 28 February 1996 memorandum to the applicant from the Fort Stewart Adjutant General provides general instructions and deadlines for retirement processing.

c.  28 February 1996 orders reassigned him for separation processing to Fort Stewart not later than 30 April 1996.

d.  A 29 February 1996 leave and earnings statement showing a leave balance of 34.5 days. 

e.  An 21 March 1996  Request and Authority for Leave (DA Form 31)  authorized the applicant permissive TDY from 31 March to 9 April 1996 and leave from 10 to 30 April 1996.

f.  A 14 March 1996 request and authorization of TDY orders for 5 days for “Outprocessing/ACAP/medical appointment.” 

g.  A 23 May 1996 letter from the Recruiting Command’s Inspector General to the effect that the applicant had cashed-in 60 days leave.  His retirement date could not have been adjusted.  Rather, he would have had to start transition leave 16 days earlier.  There was no apparent error and no  corrective action could be taken.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant retired with accrued leave for which he could not be compensated.  However, the statutory restriction on “cashing in” more that 60 days leave is well known to career soldiers and could not have come as a surprise to the applicant.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that the applicant requested and was unjustly denied the use of his accrued leave.

2.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MKP    __ESC__  ___JPS__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034665	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.